IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CO No. 3433 of 2019
Smt. Rinku Biswas nee Bardhan
Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty,
Mr. Anindya Halder,
… for the petitioner.
Mr. Meghnad Dutta,
Mr. Arindam Paul, … for the opposite party.
The wife/petitioner is the respondent of the Matrimonial Suit No. 207 of 2017 pending
before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court- III Barrackpore, District. 24
The opposite party in the said matrimonial suit is seeking a decree of dissolution of his
marriage with the petitioner.
The parties were blessed with a female child, namely Hridya Biswas. The child is now in
the custody of the petitioner.
The petitioner in the said matrimonial suit filed an application for the maintenance
pendente lite of the only daughter of the parties at the rate of Rs. 22,000/-(Twenty Two
Thousand) per month.
The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned being the Order No. 12 dated April 06,
2019 has disposed of the said application by directing the opposite party to pay alimony
pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand) per month to the petitioner on account of
maintenance of the said daughter of the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and is challenging the same on the ground
that the amount of maintenance does not commensurate with the income of the opposite party.
The petitioner claims that the salary of the opposite party being the Assistant Headmaster
of a Higher Secondary School is more than Rs. 55,000/- (Fifty Five Thousand) per month and he
has other sources of income.
The petitioner has independent income being an officer of United Bank of India.
The father and mother of the child both are in earning hands and as such are bound to
contribute to the maintenance of their child in proportion to their respective income as held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmja Sharma vs. Ratanlal Sharma reported in
(2000) 4 SCC 266.
This Court, therefore, to ascertain the income of the parties directed them to produce their
respective income proofs.
Pursuant to the said direction the petitioner produces her salary certificates for the
months from November 2019 to January 2020 wherefrom it appears she earns more or less Rs.
55,000/- (Fifty Five Thousand) per month.
The opposite party produces his income certificate issued by the headmaster of the school
where he works as an assistant teacher. It appears from the said document that the take home
salary of the opposite party is Rs. 66,540.00/-(Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred Forty) per
The aforesaid documents are taken on record.
Having regard to the income of the parties this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.
20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) per month would be just and proper amount for the maintenance of
the only daughter of the parties.
In view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as declared in the aforementioned
Report the said amount of maintenance is required to be shared by the parties.
The petitioner shall contribute a sum of Rs. 8000/- (Eight Thousand) per month and the
opposite party shall contribute a sum of Rs. 12,000/- (Twelve Thousand) per month to form the
corpus of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) per month for the maintenance of the
The parties are required to contribute their respective share T the rate directed above in
the said corpus from the date of the order impugned i.e. June 20, 2019.
The petitioner shall open a child account in the name of the daughter of the parties with
any nationalized bank and shall communicate the details of the said bank account to the opposite
The parties shall deposit their said respective contribution with the said bank account
within tenth day of each succeeding month for which it falls due. The arrear maintenance
amount shall be deposited by the parties in the said bank account by four equal monthly
instalments according to their respective share in the said contribution. First of such instalments
shall be deposited on or before February 29, 2020.
The opposite party is complaining that his access to his daughter is being denied by the
petitioner. The allegation is disputed and denied by the petitioner.
Mr. Chakraborty learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his
client never objected such access.
The opposite party being the father is entitled to have access to his daughter which is
otherwise necessary for the welfare and wellbeing of the said child.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate of this Court agrees to provide a place at his
residence for the purpose of said access.
The parties offer remuneration to Mr. Roy which Mr. Roy refuses to accept.
In view of such, the petitioner shall produce the child at the residence of Mr. Roy at 31/2,
Rajarhat Road, Kolkata- 700 059 on 2nd Sunday of each month from 11-30 A.M. (Morning)
for the purpose of access of the opposite party and his family members for two hours.
The aforesaid visitation for the month of February 2020 shall be held at the said venue on
February 22, 2020.
The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/-(One Thousand) to the petitioner on each
day of the said access on account of conveyance charges.
In the event of his any inconvenience, Mr. Roy is entitled to reschedule the time and date
of the said visitation upon notice to the learned advocates representing the parties either before
this Court or before the learned Court below.
The parties shall co-operate with each other for smooth implementation of this order.
With the above, C.O. 3433 of 2019 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties
subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)